I prevented close ground (vertical positions) spawn positions, or at least I think I did since I'm not exactly sure how to. I did this because the natural expanding pattern prevents this from being balanced similar to metalopolis or shattered in 1v1. The rush distances for cross spawns are pretty long. Its hard to make them shorter and still have necessary bases for a macro 2v2 map. Hopefully this won't be an issue.
What I was trying to do with this map was make a macro based 2v2 map that isn't like the current rectangular ones. What I mean by this is that Twighlight Fortress and Citadel of Gaia both have bases one in front of the other in a push path. I originally tried to make the map similar to Crevasse, but found it to hard to make a balanced 2v2 map without forcing cross positions.
Version 0.1 - 0.2 -Map bounds slightly increased -Main bases repositioned + slightly larger main base area -High ground natural resources reworked + larger area -Center ramps increased by one size -Gold ramps increased by one -Gold base was moved back slightly -Watchtowers moved slightly closer to the middle
Version 0.2 - 1.0 -Minerals on high ground bases readjusted -Aesthetics Overhauled
Last edit: 2012-03-11 05:32:01
Gfire United States. March 06 2012 10:51. Posts 1480
I think the base layout is pretty good. There naturals and thirds, and then ability to take fourths, fifths and sixths in a very Metalopolis-like fashion. Close air might be a little too close by air but I don't know if that's an issue in 2v2 or not. Same with rush distances, openness and whatnot. At this point, 2v2 maps aren't very developed, or at least I don't know much about them, so I can't say whether anything is really good or bad on this map.
The one thing that seems a little weird is that some of the bases are pretty cramped. You need a little space behind the mineral lines, and some space to get units in and out, especially in the upper naturals.
It seems like a good concept for a 2v2 macro map, and probably better than all of the 2v2 ladder maps, if I'm not entirely mistaken.
ESV Mapmaking Team -- @TheGfire
TheFish7 United States. March 06 2012 14:32. Posts 1286
So I take it both players would be spawning in the same base? Have you tested the bases with the two mineral lines? Its most likely going to screw up worker's mining AI. I made a map where two players spawned with their mineral lines close together and SCVs would start mining from the other players minerals once you got to about half saturation. It just really messed with the AI, some SCVs would stop mining altogether or bump other workers off of mineral patches, etc. Another problem with this setup is that if a zerg spawns next to a non-zerg the non-zerg's base is all creep'ed up. Also, the high ground bases next to the natural expos have their geysers in funny places. why not just make those bases a touch bigger to have a proper mineral line? I'd also say the gold bases suffer from the same syndrome in that units heading down the ramps would run right into mineral patches. If it were my map I'd also make the ramps into the middle a bit larger, but thats my preference. Overall though, the layout is pretty cool. the advantage to a layout like this is that you can balance it almost like its a 1v1 map. Anyway I like the general idea of the bases, just think it needs a bit of tweaking. What is probably the coolest part is that one natural is easier to defend than the other. This makes teamwork more essential to winning (i.e. a terran player takes the low ground expo, zerg the high ground) which is a great feature in a team map! I'll be following this thread, gl!
The special technique of Shadowboxin'
EatThePath United States. March 06 2012 14:47. Posts 2559
All the bases are a little cramped, especially those things in the corners. Rearrange a little and widen. Some awkward angles and chokes as well. For example, pull the gold base further into the gap between the main bases so you there's more space there with a PF installed. That area will be a huge traffic zone because the only other option to get between east/west is through the middle, so center control severely cuts off defensive mobility for the enemy team.
The starting locations need to be a little farther apart so that creep doesn't cover your ally's start location. It's not "imbalanced" but it's really annoying when half your cannon / turret places are blocked. If the zerg spawns farther from the ramp, creep tumors to outside will block so much space for a terran or protoss ally.
The center is really cool! Make this map work. ;D
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
Dark Lord United States. March 08 2012 05:48. Posts 29
I edited the map based on the feedback provided. The OP was edited with another overview and change log. I didn't bother uploading new analyzer images yet since there were no drastic changes.
Let me know if you think anything else should be changed. If not I'm gonna start aesthetics and then I'll publish it afterward.
List of changes Version 0.1 - 0.2 -Map bounds slightly increased -Main bases repositioned + slightly larger main base area -High ground natural resources reworked + larger area -Center ramps increased by one size -Gold ramps increased by one -Gold base was moved back slightly -Watchtowers moved slightly closer to the middle
On March 06 2012 14:47 EatThePath wrote: The starting locations need to be a little farther apart so that creep doesn't cover your ally's start location.
I didn't think of that when making the map since I primarily a Protoss Terran Team. I was just wondering why bases are never put closer together to offer mutual protection with turrets and such. Completely forgot about creep XD
TheFish7 United States. March 08 2012 06:02. Posts 1286
Very nice improvements. The only thing I'd be worried about now is the mineral line at the natural looks like it would be very easy to cannon-rush in such a way that you could block off your cannons with pylons. Is it possible to FFE there? I'd spend alot of time on that area since many engagements would be happening there.
The special technique of Shadowboxin'
PrivetNiCeGuY Sweden. March 08 2012 06:30. Posts 5
On March 08 2012 06:02 TheFish7 wrote: Very nice improvements. The only thing I'd be worried about now is the mineral line at the natural looks like it would be very easy to cannon-rush in such a way that you could block off your cannons with pylons.
I moved the high ground natural mineral lines back one space so 2 pylons can no longer wall off one cannon.
On March 08 2012 06:02 TheFish7 wrote: Is it possible to FFE there? I'd spend alot of time on that area since many engagements would be happening there.
You can wall off with 4 buildings as shown
Last edit: 2012-03-08 09:19:14
TheFish7 United States. March 09 2012 05:58. Posts 1286
OK, seeing it up close makes it look a bit less cramped than I thought. I think that is the "right" number of buildings for a wall-off in a 2v2 match. My final concern now is the mineral line itself - it looks like all the minerals are fairly close to the nexus. Is the rate of mineral collection at these bases higher than normal? anyway, well done. Put some pictures up when you finish the aesthetics!
The special technique of Shadowboxin'
Dark Lord United States. March 11 2012 06:15. Posts 29
I've finished aesthetics and published the map under "Mists of Pamir" I updated the change log and added a new overview, but for some reason I couldn't get it to show the fog. I also added a few pictures to showcase some aesthetics.
On March 09 2012 05:58 TheFish7 wrote: My final concern now is the mineral line itself - it looks like all the minerals are fairly close to the nexus. Is the rate of mineral collection at these bases higher than normal?
I don't really know. I just added minerals and moved them as close to the nexus as possible.